Talk:Government debt

Rename?

"Public debt" has a serious potential for confusion. When one says "the public debt" then this does mean "the debt of the government, as does the term "government debt". But "public debt" does not mean "debt of the public" - the public pays for it but the debt is not collectable from the public. To avoid confusion I suggest this article be renamed government debt. Paul Beardsell 08:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"public debt" is not collectable from the public? If that were true, nobody would lend to government. It is government's power of taxation of the public which guarantees repayment. That power of course is limited by both capacity and willingness to pay, which is why we do sometimes see government debt crises and defaults - which resemble bankruptcy, though without the formal legal protection from creditors that implies. Rd232 17:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, the article begins "public debt is money owed by government". It doesn't make any sense to call it public debt then. It should say "public debt is money owed by the public" then. I'll move it to government debt for now. - Jerryseinfeld 17:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It IS owed by the public. No-one's paying the US government debt but you or your children. The fact that a US government creditor can't approach US citizens individually is irrelevant, because his lending in the first place is predicated on trust that the government will recover the debt from citizens. Rd232 17:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Jerryseinfeld, moving a page from the most common term (public ownership) to one you think appropriate (government ownership), against disagreement by others (see Talk:public ownership, which for some reason you didn't move) is very rude. You also managed to garble the perfectly adequate intro, and add vague, confusing and POV stuff. I'm on the verge of conidering this a dispute - please explain yourself. Rd232 11:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I did explain myself in the talk page. You can probably move it to public ownership if you want to, it could be either one. - Jerryseinfeld 17:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This also seems inconsistent with Jerry's redirecting of sovereign bond and government debt to public debt. What's going on? Paul Beardsell 12:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Public debt isn't government debt? Now come on. - Jerryseinfeld 17:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I said nothing of the kind. I remarked that you were being inconsistent in your renaming of articles. But, as it happens, I do NOT think that public debt and government debt are entirely the same. Two different flavours are given with the two different terms. There is a certain political positioning happening when one refers to govt debt as public debt. But my main objection is that government debt is unambiguous, whereas "public debt" requires one to be aware of and accept the use of public in that sense - there is an ambiguity: "Public" debt could be misunderstood as, say, the aggregated credit card debts of the individuals forming the public. You have been introducing ambiguity and inconsistency. Without always the PRIOR consultation which would avoid you annoying people. Paul Beardsell 20:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I absolutely agree, that's why I moved it to government debt. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Which I tried to move back (but can't), because "public debt" beats "government debt" 2:1 in Google and rather more in conventional usage, and Wikipedia convention is to use the most common term. As for Paul Beardsell's argument - the correct term would be consumer debt. If there is any serious risk of confusion then the public debt page can include a For debts owed by individuals, see consumer debt at the top. Rd232 12:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Public" debt could be misunderstood as, say, the aggregated credit card debts of the individuals forming the public. Many things COULD be misunderstood by the ignorant; Wikipedia's job is to enlighten them, not to correct common usage. Rd232 17:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said: they would be mistaken to use "public debt" like that in my example but the mistake is likely to be made. I disagree about conventional usage. I think most people would say "hey, what?" to "public debt" whereas "government debt" would be instantly understood. The Google statistic you quote I find unimpressive: There are twice as many pages returned for public than for government. So twice as many pages for "public debt" (note the quotes) as for "government debt" says little or nothing. The Wikipedia conventions say a little more than you let on: ambiguity is to be avoided and understandability is to be promoted. Paul Beardsell 14:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misinterpret the Google statistic, which was based on the "public debt" and "government debt" as phrases, not public+debt. Given that, the former clearly dominates. Not only is it the standard, but the term is also perfectly understandable, if people read the actual article. Rd232 17:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just give up will you? - Jerryseinfeld 17:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The astuteness of your arguments never ceases to amaze. Rd232 17:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I said "note the quotes": My search was for the exact phrases not for the individual words appearing unconnected in the Google results. I repeat: I think most people would say "hey, what?" to "public debt" whereas "government debt" would be instantly understood. The Google statistic you quote I find unimpressive: There are twice as many pages returned for public than for government. So twice as many pages for "public debt" (note the quotes) as for "government debt" says little or nothing. The Wikipedia conventions say a little more than you let on: ambiguity is to be avoided and understandability is to be promoted. Paul Beardsell 21:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rewrite / deletion of section: Denominated in U.S. dollars

This section needs drastic improvement. There is some truth but there is mostly disinformation. I am not suggesting that the text has been contributed in bad faith, just that it is wrong

---

Main article: U.S. government debt

This section is largely incorrect and should not be relied upon.

Today, public debt is often denominated in U.S. dollars. The U.S. Federal Reserve sells its long bond, a 30-year instrument (though in recent years only a 10 year bond has been sold), directly to central banks of other countries, who then often find it convenient to lend in U.S. dollars to others, or buy their bonds using those U.S. dollars.

This standard of deferred payment effectively insulates the U.S. from foreign exchange risk. Seeking similar advantages, the EU issues the Euro's bonds and competes as what is called a reserve currency — that currency which is most acceptable to pay off public debts, taxes, or purchase what can be sold quickly.

Countries that borrow in denominations of their own currency will gain very similar advantages, however, since purchasing power of the money repaid (as measured in U.S. dollars or Euros) may vary considerably from that which was expected at the commencement of the loan, a higher interest rate is always charged for such instruments. Some countries, like China, do not allow their currency (the renminbi) to trade outside the country or on currency markets. These must always use one of the global reserve currencies.

During the gold standard period, which began in the 19th century and ended as an international system in 1933, public debt was most often repaid strictly in gold bullion.

The Bank for International Settlements is an entity that sets rules to define what loans qualify as "risk free" or not. It is a very powerful institution, which has had a pivotal position in central banking since its opening in 1947. It was formed by the Bretton Woods agreements of 1944, which in the context of World War II, specified the U.S. dollar as the universal global reserve currency, and pegged the dollar to a fixed amount in gold. While this ability to redeem dollars in gold legally ceased in 1970, it was effectively a fiction for decades.

---

Paul Beardsell 08:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elaborate on 'burden of the government...' paragraph

Could you please elaborate, via another link or any other means, as to how inflation / change in monetary base helps government to pay the bills? or please kindly point me in the right direction. Many thanks. Fabrice Berge, Tokyo, 25 march 2006

Quote: "Remember that the "burden" of the government is what it spends, since it can only pay its bills through taxes, debt, and inflation of the currency (government spending = tax revenues + change in government debt held by public + change in monetary base held by the public). "

Ambiguity in Scale section

Although not central to the article, the following statement is quite ambiguous: One billion people live on under US$1/day; two billion more on under US$5/day. This is almost a third of the world's population. Is it 1 + 2 = 3 billion people living on under $5 a day (half the worlds population), or 2 billion people living on under $5 a day (a third of the worlds population), with 1 billion of those living on under $1? Supaluminal 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Government debt as risk-free

The article says most people consider government debt as risk-free. Nobody sane regards it as risk-free. It is almost risk-free in the sense that lenders are likely to get something back at term, but not in the sense that they are guaranteed to get back what they expect. The market doesn't consider debt as risk-free - otherwise why would raters rate, and why would Italian debt (for example) cost less than German debt?